| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <555D5114.9010701@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:29:24 -0400
From: David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@...aro.org>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com, William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] arm64: Add HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API feature
On 05/20/15 09:39, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:19:42PM -0400, David Long wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h
>> index 6913643..58c0223 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h
>> @@ -61,6 +61,42 @@
>>
>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>
>> +#define ARM_pstate pstate
>> +#define ARM_pc pc
>> +#define ARM_sp sp
>> +#define ARM_lr regs[30]
>> +#define ARM_fp regs[29]
>> +#define ARM_x28 regs[28]
>> +#define ARM_x27 regs[27]
>> +#define ARM_x26 regs[26]
>> +#define ARM_x25 regs[25]
>> +#define ARM_x24 regs[24]
>> +#define ARM_x23 regs[23]
>> +#define ARM_x22 regs[22]
>> +#define ARM_x21 regs[21]
>> +#define ARM_x20 regs[20]
>> +#define ARM_x19 regs[19]
>> +#define ARM_x18 regs[18]
>> +#define ARM_ip1 regs[17]
>> +#define ARM_ip0 regs[16]
>> +#define ARM_x15 regs[15]
>> +#define ARM_x14 regs[14]
>> +#define ARM_x13 regs[13]
>> +#define ARM_x12 regs[12]
>> +#define ARM_x11 regs[11]
>> +#define ARM_x10 regs[10]
>> +#define ARM_x9 regs[9]
>> +#define ARM_x8 regs[8]
>> +#define ARM_x7 regs[7]
>> +#define ARM_x6 regs[6]
>> +#define ARM_x5 regs[5]
>> +#define ARM_x4 regs[4]
>> +#define ARM_x3 regs[3]
>> +#define ARM_x2 regs[2]
>> +#define ARM_x1 regs[1]
>> +#define ARM_x0 regs[0]
>> +#define ARM_ORIG_x0 orig_x0
>
> I replied some time ago on this part. I don't see the point these
> macros.
>
I replied belatedly on April 20 saying what I did matches (more or less)
how it's done on various other platforms, including arm and powerpc. It
looks like this comes from the pt_regs structure defining the registers
as an array instead of a list of structure fields. It looks to me like
that design choice is pretty widely depended upon now and would be quite
disruptive to change. It also seems to me a relatively clean way to do
it on systems with a uniform register set.
>> +
>> /*
>> * User structures for general purpose, floating point and debug registers.
>> */
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> index d882b83..a889f79 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> @@ -48,6 +48,122 @@
>> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>> #include <trace/events/syscalls.h>
>>
>> +struct pt_regs_offset {
>> + const char *name;
>> + int offset;
>> +};
>> +
>> +#define REG_OFFSET_NAME(r) \
>> + {.name = #r, .offset = offsetof(struct pt_regs, ARM_##r)}
>
> Can you not just use "offsetof(struct pt_regs, r)" here? That would be
> the same as x86, powerpc.
>
The registers (except for pc, pstate, and sp) are not separate structure
fields, they are slots in a single array. To reference them the symbolic
name has to be converted to an index (integer register number) somehow.
>> +#define REG_OFFSET_END {.name = NULL, .offset = 0}
>> +
>> +static const struct pt_regs_offset regoffset_table[] = {
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x0),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x1),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x2),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x3),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x4),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x5),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x6),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x7),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x8),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x9),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x10),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x11),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x12),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x13),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x14),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x15),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(ip0),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(ip1),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x18),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x19),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x20),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x21),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x22),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x23),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x24),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x25),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x26),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x27),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(x28),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(fp),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(lr),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(sp),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(pc),
>
> and stick to x16, x17, x29, x30 instead of the ip0 etc.
>
OK.
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(pstate),
>> + REG_OFFSET_NAME(ORIG_x0),
>> + REG_OFFSET_END,
>
> Do we need orig_x0 of MAX_REG_OFFSET doesn't include it?
>
I think this should indeed be removed.
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * regs_query_register_offset() - query register offset from its name
>> + * @name: the name of a register
>> + *
>> + * regs_query_register_offset() returns the offset of a register in struct
>> + * pt_regs from its name. If the name is invalid, this returns -EINVAL;
>> + */
>> +int regs_query_register_offset(const char *name)
>> +{
>> + const struct pt_regs_offset *roff;
>> +
>> + for (roff = regoffset_table; roff->name != NULL; roff++)
>> + if (!strcmp(roff->name, name))
>> + return roff->offset;
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * regs_query_register_name() - query register name from its offset
>> + * @offset: the offset of a register in struct pt_regs.
>> + *
>> + * regs_query_register_name() returns the name of a register from its
>> + * offset in struct pt_regs. If the @offset is invalid, this returns NULL;
>> + */
>> +const char *regs_query_register_name(unsigned int offset)
>> +{
>> + const struct pt_regs_offset *roff;
>> +
>> + for (roff = regoffset_table; roff->name != NULL; roff++)
>> + if (roff->offset == offset)
>> + return roff->name;
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>
> BTW, these functions together with the pt_regs_offset structure look the
> same on the other architectures. Can we move them to some common header
> to avoid duplication (e.g. linux/ptrace.h)?
>
Common header *and* .c files? Yes, I see your point.
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * regs_within_kernel_stack() - check the address in the stack
>> + * @regs: pt_regs which contains kernel stack pointer.
>> + * @addr: address which is checked.
>> + *
>> + * regs_within_kernel_stack() checks @addr is within the kernel stack page(s).
>> + * If @addr is within the kernel stack, it returns true. If not, returns false.
>> + */
>> +bool regs_within_kernel_stack(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr)
>> +{
>> + return ((addr & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1)) ==
>> + (kernel_stack_pointer(regs) & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1)));
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * regs_get_kernel_stack_nth() - get Nth entry of the stack
>> + * @regs: pt_regs which contains kernel stack pointer.
>> + * @n: stack entry number.
>> + *
>> + * regs_get_kernel_stack_nth() returns @n th entry of the kernel stack which
>> + * is specified by @regs. If the @n th entry is NOT in the kernel stack,
>> + * this returns 0.
>> + */
>> +unsigned long regs_get_kernel_stack_nth(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int n)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long *addr = (unsigned long *)kernel_stack_pointer(regs);
>> +
>> + addr += n;
>> + if (regs_within_kernel_stack(regs, (unsigned long)addr))
>> + return *addr;
>> + else
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Same here.
>
Also makes sense and looks doable.
-dl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists